The Law Royal Commission into Child Abuse

[Maggie5]

Gladly.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...IIFzAA&usg=AFQjCNFxUSainO3yvIZbQ9Q41Tfx5xqe4Q

Did you notice at the bottom of the article:

The royal commission has also received a staggering 1200 reports of alleged sexual abuse against children in residential care centres nationally over the past two financial years. Many of these reports were not followed up, often because the victims were too afraid to pursue the matter.

Further if you look at the cases, they are looking into this area.

However judging from some of the responses on here, it seems a shame that some victims are too afraid of pursuing the matter and I can understand why.
Again I will repeat if you missed it, I hope that the perpetrators are caught and punished to the full extent of the law but at the same time I hope that those who had knowledge of these crimes and didn't come forward are punished in the same way.

So I really am not sure what your point is.
It seems to me that your bigger concern again is the poor Catholic Church and Pell who in your eyes seem to be the real victims.
Carry on...

 

[CM86]

He was a junior player in 1974.

What was his total position in 1974?

 

[CM86]

I think people would stop talking about Pell so much... if other people stopped telling them they weren't allowed to talk about him...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Well, that didn't last long, forget in not interested.!!!!

So, in short, you can't pint to any other peripheral player who has been subjected to such scrutiny.

Thank you.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I think people would stop talking about Pell so much... if other people stopped telling them they weren't allowed to talk about him...

Yes. We should just shut up. Accept your right to use an innocent person as the symbol of institutional child abuse in Australia, and it will all go away.

Sadly for you, some of us aren't that spineless.

 

[Present Not Past]

So I really am not sure what your point is.
It seems to me that your bigger concern again is the poor Catholic Church and Pell who in your eyes seem to be the real victims.
Carry on...

Don't patronise me, and I won't be bullied by anyone in this thread, including you.
The way that you just dismissed that article with just a cursory reference to perpetrators clearly indicates that you have only one agenda posting in this thread.

 

[CM86]

Yes. We should just shut up. Accept your right to use an innocent person as the symbol of institutional child abuse in Australia, and it will all go away.

Sadly for you, some of us aren't that spineless.

No...
This is a discussion forum... only one way for a certain part of a topic to die, is for people to stop discussing it.

And you're plenty spineless.

So, 1974, what was Pell's junior position?

 

[Maggie5]

So, in short, you can't pint to any other peripheral player who has been subjected to such scrutiny.

Thank you.

Made my point you can continue with whatever you want to post just that it is very sad you didn't last very long in sticking to the point of the RC.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Don't patronise me, and I won't be bullied by anyone in this thread, including you.
The way that you just dismissed that article with just a cursory reference to perpetrators clearly indicates that you have only one agenda posting in this thread.

She doesn't want to discuss matters of children in state care because it gives weight to a suggestion I made last week that the level of abuse in Govt run institutions dwarfs that of the Catholic ones.

Such revelations ruin the narrative.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

No...
This is a discussion forum... only one way for a certain part of a topic to die, is for people to stop discussing it.

And you're plenty spineless.

So, 1974, what was Pell's junior position?

He was a relatively junior priest.

 

[CM86]

He was a relatively junior priest.

Ah... changing already?

Relatively is relative.

Do you know what his position actually was? Or are you just being as vague as you can, because you know he wasn't some nobody?

 

[Maggie5]

Don't patronise me, and I won't be bullied by anyone in this thread, including you.
The way that you just dismissed that article with just a cursory reference to perpetrators clearly indicates that you have only one agenda posting in this thread.

You perceived my post as patronising and bullying?

Did you not read what I posted? Have you not read the thread where I have followed this hearing and am currently listening to it in the background?

Just because I won't join the chorus of the defence of Pell?

You come in the thread, mention an article and provide the link, what were your thoughts on the article.
What are your observations, what do you consider can be changed to make sure that this doesn't continue?

Normally one posts a link and provides either their impression or thinking behind the link - what do your offer yet you accuse me of having an agenda?

 

[Present Not Past]

She doesn't want to discuss matters of children in state care because it gives weight to a suggestion I made last week that the level of abuse in Govt run institutions dwarfs that of the Catholic ones.

Such revelations ruin the narrative.

You'd think she would at least have a modicum of interest in discussing the issue (given it was discussed in the RC recently) - sadly I was wrong.
I think she should be waving herself goodbye from this thread.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Ah... changing already?

Relatively is relative.

Do you know what his position actually was? Or are you just being as vague as you can, because you know he wasn't some nobody?

Well you tell me what his position was. It has been misrepresented many times.

His role was an academic one. Not a pastoral one. He was involved in putting together curricula for the various educational institutions. His only real pastoral contact was saying Mass on a weekly basis. He sat on the advisory committee which shifted Ridsdale around. He doesn't remember why Ridsdale was shifted but thought it unusual but not so unusual that he should be asking questions of his superiors. Another junior priest at the time recalls it being because Ridsdale had a homosexual relationship with someone.

That, whilst sad, horrifying in fact, is not unremarkable. That Mulkearns and his more senior committee members chose to hide from the junior committee members the fact that Ridsdale was a rampant abuser makes complete sense to me. It disgusts me, but I can understand that from the perspective of Pell.

"we heard he had a problem with his homosexuality and didn't ask questions" is pretty much a summary of their position. That pretty much sums up how homosexuality was treated in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Present Not Past]

Just because I won't join the chorus of the defence of Pell?

What the?
I posted the article because I thought it was relevant to the thread, you know about the Royal Commission? And it could be discussed. Sadly I was wrong. Zero interest. And I got accused of being a Catholic Church sympathiser to boot.

 

[CM86]

Well you tell me what his position was. It has been misrepresented many times.

His role was an academic one. Not a pastoral one. He was involved in putting together curricula for the various educational institutions. His only real pastoral contact was saying Mass on a weekly basis. He sat on the advisory committee which shifted Ridsdale around. He doesn't remember why Ridsdale was shifted but thought it unusual but not so unusual that he should be asking questions of his superiors. Another junior priest at the time recalls it being because Ridsdale had a homosexual relationship with someone.

That, whilst sad, horrifying in fact, is not unremarkable. That Mulkearns and his more senior committee members chose to hide from the junior committee members the fact that Ridsdale was a rampant abuser makes complete sense to me. It disgusts me, but I can understand that from the perspective of Pell.

"we heard he had a problem with his homosexuality and didn't ask questions" is pretty much a summary of their position. That pretty much sums up how homosexuality was treated in the 70s and 80s.

So... he wasn't a nobody... he was part of advisory boards and a director...

Right... I suppose his current position is lower-middle management?

What about his position when more information started to come to light about what had been happening?

 

[Maggie5]

What the?
I posted the article because I thought it was relevant to the thread, you know about the Royal Commission? And it could be discussed. Sadly I was wrong. Zero interest. And I got accused of being a Catholic Church sympathiser to boot.

Again, I am not sure what your point is? You introduced Pell and the Catholic church into the discussion.
I highlighted a paragraph from that link in an attempt to discuss your link, you never responded.
I mentioned that I can understand why some victims don't come forward - you said - Nothing.
I asked for your observations and what can be changed - you said - Nothing
I could go on but I think you get what I mean. I have told you that I have been following the RC, have you?
Why did you not know that the RC has and is still looking into residential care?
You want a discussion, well I have given you some points to discuss.
The continual mention of Pell is very boring, he had his time in the hearing, I have moved on but it seems some others just can't let go.

Sadly I know of victims, one of which has committed suicide so unlike some posters that just drop into this thread, the RC hearings has some significance to me.

 

[Present Not Past]

.
The continual mention of Pell is very boring, he had his time in the hearing, I have moved on but it seems some others just can't let go.

Sadly I know of victims, one of which has committed suicide so unlike some posters that just drop into this thread, the RC hearings has some significance to me.

I agree. Why can't this thread move on to what's happening in the RC now - that's why I posted the article in the first place but you have dragged the discussion back to George Pell again That's all that people seem to want to discuss.
You want a discussion okay - how about this:
The NSW government's response to endemic sexual abuse within it's residential care homes is to provide the children with "survival kits" stocked with condoms and lubricants. Is this a satisfactory response? Who in the Department was responsible for this decision? Shouldn't the RC have authority to question politicians and beaureaucrats.

 

[Maggie5]

She doesn't want to discuss matters of children in state care because it gives weight to a suggestion I made last week that the level of abuse in Govt run institutions dwarfs that of the Catholic ones.

Such revelations ruin the narrative.

Don't you get sick of being wrong?

Check the links on the previous page that I supplied. The number of priests charged (died before court hearings) or convicted run into the hundreds.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

So... he wasn't a nobody... he was part of advisory boards and a director...

Right... I suppose his current position is lower-middle management?

What about his position when more information started to come to light about what had been happening?

Suppose all you like. He was neither a director nor lower/middle management.

He was certainly a member of the advisory council, probably for his input on educational matters. He'd had 2 years experience as a priest prior to 1974.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Don't you get sick of being wrong?

Check the links on the previous page that I supplied. The number of priests charged (died before court hearings) or convicted run into the hundreds.

Whilst I don't give any weight, at all, to the Broken Rites webpage, I am aware of the general numbers of offences and offenders within the Catholic Church. I'm not sure there has been any particular year where the victims numbered 1200.

 

[CM86]

Suppose all you like. He was neither a director nor lower/middle management.

He was certainly a member of the advisory council, probably for his input on educational matters. He'd had 2 years experience as a priest prior to 1974.

Two things.

1. He was a director in 1974...

2. I don't think you actually understood the post you replied to.

 

[western royboy]

Two things.

1. He was a director in 1974...

2. I don't think you actually understood the post you replied to.

George was the Director of Aquinas Catholic Teachers College in 1974. He regularly dined with two gents at some Catholic House in Ballarat, there names were Gerry Ridsdale and Ronnie Mulkearns. How do I know this - a nun (Sistet of Mercy) told me.

How quaint.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Two things.

1. He was a director in 1974...

2. I don't think you actually understood the post you replied to.

A director in the corporate sense or a director of a campus of an educational institution which is not the subject, in any sense, of the RC?

 

[Maggie5]

I agree. Why can't this thread move on to what's happening in the RC now - that's why I posted the article in the first place but you have dragged the discussion back to George Pell again That's all that people seem to want to discuss.
You want a discussion okay - how about this:
The NSW government's response to endemic sexual abuse within it's residential care homes is to provide the children with "survival kits" stocked with condoms and lubricants. Is this a satisfactory response? Who in the Department was responsible for this decision? Shouldn't the RC have authority to question politicians and beaureaucrats.

Well that is just so wrong! No it is NOT satisfactory. Is this to protect them from fellow residents or from their carers or both?
How do you know of all this, do you work in the area?

I don't believe that the RC has finished with that area but surely someone should bring it to their attention. Absolutely agree that they should not only be questioned by held accountable.

I have written to my local Senate member twice now and not received a response apart from a thank you email.
The RC released a final report in August 2015 into the requirements for the Working with Children Checks. Each state has different requirements (posted the details on another page in this thread) and no action has been taken on it. I think it is a disgrace as one person who has failed this test in one state can work in another.

There is so much that is wrong but I think that this RC is working hard to get to the bottom of it but it seems our politicians are not acting on it.